Critical Fails that don't disproportionately hurt martials

[tedcahill2]

I started a game recently and initially said I would not be using any form of critical failures.

Well, the entire group wants critical failures, no matter how passionately I try to explain why they're a bad idea that affects the groups two-weapon fighter and rapid shot archer more than anyone else.

Is there a solution that isn't horrible?

My only thought was to have everyone roll a d20 on their turn in combat and that roll, and only that roll, would determine if they would suffer some sort of failure during their turn.

[Blu]

Problem with fumbles is that they either hurt martials bad or in the case of them having a "safe" mechanic they tend to become irrelevant as time passes.

Are there spellcasters in the party? What level is the table and what is the party's composition?

[Psyren]

If you institute an Active Spellcasting-type system (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/active-spellcasting-variant-rules/), you can apply fumbles to the casters too. If the spell fumble isn't relevant, just apply a minor spellblight for a round instead.

...That doesn't really solve your problem of the fails themselves being cheap in some cases, but at least the cheapness gets spread around?

[Deophaun]

Is there a solution that isn't horrible?
When someone rolls a 1, they get to describe what, if anything, happens. If they want to draw from a critical failure deck, they can. If they don't, they don't. They can do this for all ones they roll, for none, or just those where they feel like it.

Critical failures cannot directly affect other creatures; no accidentally chopping your ally's head off.

There. Now no one's punished.

Edit: And you can tie this to an action point system, where the DM can step in to offer an incentive to take the critical failure in exchange for granting the character an action point.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Only your first roll each round can threaten a Fumble" is a decent compromise. That divorces the concept from multiple attacks. For spellcasting, I'd say "roll a d20 when you cast a spell; on a natural 1, something goes wrong."

Deophaun's suggestion that the fumbler decide what happens is also a good one.

[Psyren]

Eh, a penalty you can choose to ignore isn't much of one I'd say. Even arbitrary/artificial difficulty can be fun, the Souls games and roguelikes prove that. Some of your deaths there are completely random, yet they don't turn people off, and a fumble in D&D is much less likely to prove fatal (especially if you have to confirm, which you should.)

[noce]

My DM, on a natural 1, rolls secretely a d8.

If the roll is 1 or 2 you drop your weapon, if the roll is 3 or 4 you hit yourself (no power attack) but the weapon does not drop. If the roll is 5 or more, you just miss.

You could do something similar with spells, when rolling a natural 1 on Concentration.
For example, rolling 1 or 2 you drop your component pouch or your holy symbol, while rolling 3 or 4 you accidentally hit yourself.

Suddenly, critical fails hurt magic users more than mundanes.

[TorsteinTheRed]

Instead of fumbles being only bad, make them "Random Complications."

Whenever someone rolls a 1, have them also roll a d%, the value of which determines the goodness/badness of the complication.

Something like a 10 might be dropping your weapon, while a 95 might be "Well, you don't deal any damage, but you knock him off balance for a turn, giving him -2 to all rolls," or "You would have missed, but your foot slips on the smooth rock, causing you to lurch forward and hit!" Get creative, improvise based on the number, and it can make for a fun time.

This system allows you to add fumbles to Skill checks and saves as well, if your players are asking for them.

"Well, you picked the lock, but one of your picks is stuck in there. Anyone that looks at it will be able to tell that the lock was picked."

[Psyren]

You could do something similar with spells, when rolling a natural 1 on Concentration.
For example, rolling 1 or 2 you drop your component pouch or your holy symbol, while rolling 3 or 4 you accidentally hit yourself.

Suddenly, critical fails hurt magic users more than mundanes.

The issue is that casters have ways around the first one (like Eschew Materials and Birthmark) that making dropping these things impossible. As for hitting yourself with the spell, that could easily be worse for the martial too. Imagine a caster is trying to heal a fighter in the fray and fails their concentration, they end up healing themselves, but the fighter dies the following round. That's the difficulty with magic fumbles - unlike attacks, spells are not always aimed at the enemy.

[Eldan]

I can just see how that would go in my current party.

Sorcerer: Whoops, a 1 on my ice ball. Everyone within 20 feet of me takes 8d6 cold damage.
Rogue: I evade
Fighter: I'm dead
Cleric: I'm 3/4 dead
Sorcerer: I'm immune to cold damage

[Big Fau]

"Only your first roll each round can threaten a Fumble" is a decent compromise. That divorces the concept from multiple attacks. For spellcasting, I'd say "roll a d20 when you cast a spell; on a natural 1, something goes wrong."

Deophaun's suggestion that the fumbler decide what happens is also a good one.

It still means the Fighter's most reliable attack has a chance of backfiring spectacularly on him.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It still means the Fighter's most reliable attack has a chance of backfiring spectacularly on him.
Oh, make no mistake, I'm still firmly in the "crit fails are a pox on gaming" camp, but if tedcahill2's entire group is demanding them, we can at least try to find ways to make them less punishing.

[tedcahill2]

Oh, make no mistake, I'm still firmly in the "crit fails are a pox on gaming" camp, but if tedcahill2's entire group is demanding them, we can at least try to find ways to make them less punishing.

I just had an hour long debate with 3 of my players that want them implemented in the way we generally play, which is on a nat 1 and confirm crit fail something bad happens, which often includes hitting a team mate, especially when using ranged attacks into combat. This group, well certain DMs, have also frequently ruled that missing by less than 4 when firing an attack without precise shot, also risks hitting an ally.

I suggested that the player will determine the affect of their own crit fails, but they can't cause harm to other players, and they didn't like that (cause they think friendly fire is "realistic"). We're also using an action point type system, so I suggested that you gain an action point on a crit fail (sort of a karmic balancer) which can be spent immediately to avoid the effect of the crit fail, or saved for later if you accept the effect of the crit fail. This way, more attacks = more potential to crit fail BUT they can be negated easily if desired. Again they didn't like this. Couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that you "benefit" from crit failing (by gaining an action point).

I'm at a loss here.

[Deophaun]

I just had an hour long debate with 3 of my players that want them implemented in the way we generally play
Are those three players all of your players? If so, let them have their way. They're only really hurting themselves, so there's really no reason to say "no."

If they aren't all of your players, then put your foot down. This is how you want to run your game. I don't think a single gaming group in the history of gaming groups has ever dissolved because of a lack of fumble rules.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Oh, make no mistake, I'm still firmly in the "crit fails are a pox on gaming" camp, but if tedcahill2's entire group is demanding them, we can at least try to find ways to make them less punishing.

I think Rolemaster is the only game I've played where the crit fails are good. Mostly because the crit successes are just as fun, and the spellcasters are just as, if not MORE vulnerable to crit failing. And their crit fails are worse than martials.

[Psyren]

I just had an hour long debate with 3 of my players that want them implemented in the way we generally play, which is on a nat 1 and confirm crit fail something bad happens, which often includes hitting a team mate, especially when using ranged attacks into combat. This group, well certain DMs, have also frequently ruled that missing by less than 4 when firing an attack without precise shot, also risks hitting an ally.

I suggested that the player will determine the affect of their own crit fails, but they can't cause harm to other players, and they didn't like that (cause they think friendly fire is "realistic"). We're also using an action point type system, so I suggested that you gain an action point on a crit fail (sort of a karmic balancer) which can be spent immediately to avoid the effect of the crit fail, or saved for later if you accept the effect of the crit fail. This way, more attacks = more potential to crit fail BUT they can be negated easily if desired. Again they didn't like this. Couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that you "benefit" from crit failing (by gaining an action point).

I'm at a loss here.

Just go with it for now. They might be more open to your arguments after they crit fail a few times. Or against all the odds, they'll end up having fun and you won't have to change anything. Either way, you get to argue with them less and play with them more, so it's win/win.

Just make sure it is not 3 vocal players dictating the rules for everyone else (don't know the size of your playgroup.)

[Nifft]

When someone rolls a 1, they get to describe what, if anything, happens. If they want to draw from a critical failure deck, they can. If they don't, they don't. They can do this for all ones they roll, for none, or just those where they feel like it.

Critical failures cannot directly affect other creatures; no accidentally chopping your ally's head off.

There. Now no one's punished.

Edit: And you can tie this to an action point system, where the DM can step in to offer an incentive to take the critical failure in exchange for granting the character an action point. I was going to suggest a FATE-point style of self-awarding for catastrophic failure, but you've already laid it out pretty nicely.

This would be my preference for a critical fail system: you bank the penalty and get paid a bonus later.


"Only your first roll each round can threaten a Fumble" is a decent compromise. That divorces the concept from multiple attacks. For spellcasting, I'd say "roll a d20 when you cast a spell; on a natural 1, something goes wrong."

An idea from over in the 5e forum was:

On your last attack each round, if you roll a natural 1, you have the option to treat that 1 as a natural 20 -- but doing this will break your current weapon.

You could also have it only apply to the first attack, and the "broken weapon" thing happens at the end of your turn instead of immediately.

[tedcahill2]

I was going to suggest a FATE-point style of self-awarding for catastrophic failure, but you've already laid it out pretty nicely.

This would be my preference for a critical fail system: you bank the penalty and get paid a bonus later.



An idea from over in the 5e forum was:

On your last attack each round, if you roll a natural 1, you have the option to treat that 1 as a natural 20 -- but doing this will break your current weapon.

You could also have it only apply to the first attack, and the "broken weapon" thing happens at the end of your turn instead of immediately.

Group is a clr/wiz, 2 ftr/rogs, a dfa, a psywar, and a barb.

So far the vocal ones are the dfa, one of the ftrs, and the wiz/clr

[Nifft]

Group is a clr/wiz, 2 ftr/rogs, a dfa, a psywar, and a barb.

So far the vocal ones are the dfa, one of the ftrs, and the wiz/clr

DFA won't be making many attack rolls. That player shouldn't get a vote.

Wiz/Clr -- is this person making attack rolls with a weapon? Clerics can do that; Wizards usually don't.

Ftr -- let this person try to convince some of the other weapon users. This PC will suffer from fumbles.

In general, though, it looks like most of your weapon-using PCs do not want fumbles. Therefore my opinion would be: do not add fumbles to the game.

[Psyren]

So half the group (actually, a little less than half.) At the very least you should get the opinions of the remaining half; making an informed decision requires information after all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You could make it optional-- in exchange for fumbling on a natural 1, you get some added benefit on a natural 20 (an extra crit multiplier, maybe?). That way those who like fumbles can enjoy them, and those who dislike fumbles don't have to worry so much.

[tedcahill2]

You could make it optional-- in exchange for fumbling on a natural 1, you get some added benefit on a natural 20 (an extra crit multiplier, maybe?). That way those who like fumbles can enjoy them, and those who dislike fumbles don't have to worry so much.

They've already convinced themselves that criticals (per RAW) are already the mechanical balance to critical failures. I try explaining the imbalance in that dual wielders have double the odds of a critical failure, to which they say "it's realistic and is how it should be", and that it's balanced by the potential for more critical hits.

[Deophaun]

They've already convinced themselves that criticals (per RAW) are already the mechanical balance to critical failures.
The mechanical balance to criticals is that both PCs and NPCs are subject to them (and considering the swingy-ness of criticals and the disposable nature of NPCs, this isn't really balance). It's like saying home runs in baseball need to be balanced by having a way for a team to lose four runs. That's not how balance works.

But the choir doesn't need the sermon.

[daremetoidareyo]

Turn fumbles on and off. If you use action points, any combat participant can spend 1 to turn them on or off for your action point die number of rounds. Default mode is fumbles are turned off, unless you are in an environment that could cause fumbles.

I never let PCs hit other PCs with weapon rolls unless they are firing into melee.

A roll of 1 has a list of things that could happen that consists of the following, chosen by me or the player by virtue of the best narrative. The list includes:
falling prone,
dropping your weapon,
dropping your shield,
losing your helmet,
lodging your weapon in the environment
lodging your weapon in an enemy (if you fumble on a second attack and not a first),
prompting a balance check to avoid slipping (DC 10 - 20 depending on environment).

[Arbane]

I just had an hour long debate with 3 of my players that want them implemented in the way we generally play, which is on a nat 1 and confirm crit fail something bad happens, which often includes hitting a team mate, especially when using ranged attacks into combat. This group, well certain DMs, have also frequently ruled that missing by less than 4 when firing an attack without precise shot, also risks hitting an ally.

I suggested that the player will determine the affect of their own crit fails, but they can't cause harm to other players, and they didn't like that (cause they think friendly fire is "realistic"). We're also using an action point type system, so I suggested that you gain an action point on a crit fail (sort of a karmic balancer) which can be spent immediately to avoid the effect of the crit fail, or saved for later if you accept the effect of the crit fail. This way, more attacks = more potential to crit fail BUT they can be negated easily if desired. Again they didn't like this. Couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that you "benefit" from crit failing (by gaining an action point).

I'm at a loss here.

Your idea sounds perfectly sensible to me.


They've already convinced themselves that criticals (per RAW) are already the mechanical balance to critical failures. I try explaining the imbalance in that dual wielders have double the odds of a critical failure, to which they say "it's realistic and is how it should be", and that it's balanced by the potential for more critical hits.

(Edit: I'd recommend telling them something like)
"Which part of 'this is a FANTASY game' are you not comprehending? Is it the part where people get to be competent?"

You could always split the difference: The fumblelovers get to enjoy their Happy Fun Miserable Failure Hour, everyone else just misses on a 1. You'd still need to find some way to torture the spellcasters, though. (Ever notice 'realism'-based houserules in D&D always screw over fighters and never affect spellcasters? :smallfurious: )

[Psyren]

"Which part of 'this is a FANTASY game' are you not comprehending? Is it the part where people get to be competent?"

I think he's conveying the arguments of his players - no need for us to shoot the messenger.

@OP: again, I would strongly suggest you find out how the other players feel about this before taking action. A minority of players should not be dictating optional rules that will affect the majority, and in particular, players that this ruling won't affect (like the DFA) should have less of a say than those who it will.

[Arbane]

I think he's conveying the arguments of his players - no need for us to shoot the messenger.

@OP: again, I would strongly suggest you find out how the other players feel about this before taking action. A minority of players should not be dictating optional rules that will affect the majority, and in particular, players that this ruling won't affect (like the DFA) should have less of a say than those who it will.

Well, yeah, I knew that. (Edited)

Yeah, good idea. If he doesn't take my idea and just give fumbles to the masochists players who want them, get the other player opinions and weight them accordingly.

[FreddyNoNose]

It still means the Fighter's most reliable attack has a chance of backfiring spectacularly on him.

Not a real problem.

[Rynjin]

They literally asked for it, so implement them in all their ****ty, game ruining glory.

If you want to make spellcasters feel the pain too, have it apply any time a monster gets a Nat 20 on their save vs a spell they cast, they roll a 1 on a spell with an attack roll (double dip for spells with both!), and just have them roll a d20 any time they cast a utility spell, on a 1 something dumb happens. Spells rebound on the caster (no save, obviously the monster getting a Nat 20 is equivalent to them already rolling a 1 on THEIR save), or have effects thrown off (Comprehend Languages makes them unable to communicate, Levitate makes them spin out of control, Spider Climb works TOO well and binds them to any surface they touch like Sovereign Glue). Fun for the whole party!

If they really want critical failures by god it's your right and duty to shovel critical failures down their throats until they're sick of them.

[Sredni Vashtar]

Have they mentioned why they like crit fails outside of "realism?"

[daremetoidareyo]

Have they mentioned why they like crit fails outside of "realism?"

I can answer this. Crit fumbles can be really fun and funny. They're little chaos candies.

[Gildedragon]

If I were to implement fumbles:

A) a fumble gets you an Action Point
B) roll 2d6 consult following chart

2: Miss*, Provoke an AoO
3: Miss*, -1 to AC until start of next turn
4: Miss*
5: Resolve attack normally, Resolve damage without any bonuses (such as from a high strength score, or weapon enhancements)
6: Resolve attack normally, Provoke an AoO
7: Resolve attack normally, -1 to AC until start of next turn
8: Resolve attack normally, if it hits halve the damage
9: Resolve attack normally
10: Reroll attack using 1d10; incur an attack of opportunity
11: Reroll attack using 1d10; -1 to AC until start of next turn
12: Treat attack as a Hit, turn ends immediately (the idea of Critical Hit + Broken Condition at end of turn is also good)

*Miss can be changed to "Treat as having rolled a -5"

[Psyren]

I can answer this. Crit fumbles can be really fun and funny. They're little chaos candies.

I agree, they can be done right. I'm not in the camp that thinks they should be purged from gaming forevermore with the earth beneath them irradiated, scorched and salted.

But I also fully acknowledge that they're not everyone's cup of tea, which is why the group as a whole should get a say. And even if everyone wants them, the rules should (a) apply to monsters too and (b) find a way to penalize casters as much as martials - but not when they're doing martial-friendly things like buffing and healing.

[Afgncaap5]

When someone rolls a 1, they get to describe what, if anything, happens. If they want to draw from a critical failure deck, they can. If they don't, they don't. They can do this for all ones they roll, for none, or just those where they feel like it.

Critical failures cannot directly affect other creatures; no accidentally chopping your ally's head off.

I'm going to second this. Point out to players that there's a difference between a natural 20's auto-hit and a weapon threatening a critical on a 20 (or 19 or 18 or whatever) and that the natural 20's auto-hit is already balanced by the natural 1's auto-miss. The opposite of "you get to deal double damage if you confirm a critical" isn't necessarily "you hit an ally or yourself if you confirm a critical miss", after all. So let them describe their own spectacular failures, or choose to draw from a deck, if they want anything at all.

Because let's be honest: drawing from a deck (or rolling a percentile die from a big chart of outcomes) can be *fun*. The Mayhem Deck from Planet Mercenary is one of my favorite things ever; most of them gave something bad in addition to something good, though there's a few other things.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

The rule I used was that critical fails were optional: you could, if you wanted, re-roll a 1 to try to your Heroic Luck - but if your second roll missed, then you suffered Heroic Failure (you were penalised by -4 for the next round on your choice of Attack, Damage or AC).

It let you decide to take the chance to fail hard, or succeed by the skin of your teeth. Players seemed to enjoy it.

I also applied this to casters, by making a 20 result on the save give this same option.

[NomGarret]

At the very least I would suggest a roll to confirm the fumble. That actually mirrors the roll for a critical hit, allows some dramatic tension, and keeps multiattackers from getting proportionally more prone to disaster as they get better.

[tedcahill2]

Well the main argument, outside of the "realism", is that they simply think it's fun and adds an element of randomness to combat. So I will add said randomness in the form of critical fails, as long as they are optional, in the sense they can be easily avoided. This caveat is to ensure that builds that roll a lot of dice aren't impacted more than others, and to ensure that players can have "hero moments" without needing to worry about rolling a 1. Inspiration points are already capped at 3 so players can't just pool a bunch of inspiration points for "the final battle".

My solution is going to be this:

When someone rolls a natural 1 it will be a critical failure. There will be no confirmation of the critical failure, a 1 is simply be a critical failure.

I will describe the negative impact of said failure, something relevant to the context of the action being attempted (no random tables). The player may then accept the failure, and gain an inspiration point for doing so, or may reject the failure and gain no inspiration point.

The failure can only impact/penalize the character that rolled the 1. No harm will come to another party member due to a critical failure.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If your group will accept it, that seems like a fair solution.

[Vhaidara]

Whatever you end up doing, if only those three are asking for it, it should only impact those three. The others of your group can opt in, but don't force fumbles on them.

[Knaight]

If they want them because they're supposed to balance out against critical attacks (which they don't, but whatever) an obvious way to do that would be for them to take away attacks in some fashion, or provoke opponent's attacks. In ranged combat this would generally mean screwing up a reload or similar costing a bit of time (1 attack), in melee it could involve provoking an attack of opportunity against the opponent you tried to hit, representing over extension.

Where this gets really fun is magic. If we're accepting that a critical hit mirrors a crit fumble, then the obvious analog for most spells would be someone rolling a 20 on a save. This could represent an opportunity to prevent the spell from going through, using the spell against the caster somehow, or even an attack/spell of opportunity. To some extent this would have to be handled on a per spell basis, which does somewhat favor the sort of fiction first mechanics that tend not to go over well among the D&D community.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If their primary argument truly is realism, and yet they want dumb things like "hit ally" as a main part of the failure list, just do the target practice test.

Ten regular Human Warrior 1 NPCs line up next to each other, striking target dummies with greatswords for one minute. If any of them are critically injured or dead by the end of the exercise, the fumble rules are dumb.

[bahamut920]

Maybe if they only applied when using weapons the attacker isn't proficient with or weapons in a state they normally wouldn't be used in (e.g. with the Broken condition), or maybe if the attacker was under the effects of certain conditions (Shaken, Sickened, and Fatigued and their upgrades seem like good candidates). You could also make an "aura of unluck" or something that causes crit fumble rules to activate. That way, they wouldn't be in effect at all times, but at certain times when the PCs would logically be at their worst they have a chance of rearing their ugly heads. And to be honest, how often to you see a trained fencer drop their weapon or poke themselves when the situation doesn't match one of the above? A trained fencer fencing with a weapon he knows when both are in good condition has a negligible chance of committing a blunder like that without some action on the part of his opponent. And these are simple sportsmen, not warriors whose lives may be the cost of such blunders.

As for crit fails on casters, I'd suggest that when a caster (or pseudocaster like a dragonfire adept) is suffering from one of the conditions above, they have to make Concentration checks to cast the spell as if they were casting defensively or distracted by a non-damaging spell. If they roll a 1, they get some sort of cantrip-level effect going off in their square, determined by the school of the spell they're casting (or element or whatever seems appropriate). "My fireball hits the floor at my feet" is inappropriate; the worst thing that happens to a fighter on a crit is usually "I hurt myself" not "I killed my entire party". Spell rebounds are even worse.

I feel like this is the only way I'd tolerate crit fumbles at any table I played at. The last time a DM I played with ran a fumble table, I rolled an enchanter witch who never made a single attack roll in protest. The next campaign did not implement fumbles.

That said, as long as all of your players (or at least all of the players affected by fumbles) are enjoying the fumble rules, they are obviously playing the game the right way - for them. As soon as one player begins to get sick of them, though, they should probably be either canned or the players allowed to opt-out.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

My solution would be similar to Dungeon World's EXP system. Use active spellcasting, and when someone fumbles they miss and draw a Drama Card (https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0BwTCnUpdJOMhcXRZOUgwOFJpWWs). Something bad (missing/failing/Losing tome) happens but they get a way to influence things later to compensate for the enemy not caring if it fumbles.